Neuro, AI, Robotics seminar Mon.27.jul.1998

Mentifex mentifex at scn.org
Thu Jul 30 08:40:22 EST 1998


Stephen Wood <swood at papyrus.mhri.edu.au> on 30.jul.1998 from the
http://www.mhri.edu.au Mental Health Reseach Institute writes:

Mentifex wrote:      
   
>>  The "ganged fibres" are simply redundant parallel nerve fibers
>>  holding a concept--which is in turn a collection of associative
>>  tags--which are neuronal fibers leading from the abstract con-
>>  ceptual fibers to the concrete engrams in the sensory channels.
>>

> OK, lets get serious. Published journal articles please
> (rather than non-reviewed web sites) to show the neural basis
> (and I mean in terms of neurons, synapses and neurotransmitters)
> of 'redundant parallel nerve fibres holding a concept'. I mean,
> what is your proof of any of this? Are abstract conceptual fibres
> pyramidal cells?  Granule cells? Interneurons? Basket cells?
> Purkinje cells? What? And by the way, I'm uncertain of your use
> of redundant, since you seem to be suggesting that actually they
> aren't redundant but very useful!

  [ "Redundant" here indicates massively parallel processing. ]

  There are no "published journal articles" about these advanced
  topics; and there is not yet an identified "neural basis" but
  rather a basis in logic and in Chomskyan linguistics.  Behold:

  Hearing    Vision    The Evolution of Concepts   Motor Output
 /iiiiiii\  /!i!i!i!\  Primitive Verbal Abstract  /YYYYYYYYYYYY\
| ||||||| || ||||||| |  +   +    +      +   +    | |||||||||||| |
| ||||||| || | ___ | |  +   +   / \     +   +    | |||||||||||| |
| ||||||| ||  /   \  |  +   +  /   \    +   +    | |||||||||||| |
| ||||||| || (image)-|--+   + (blood)   +---+    | |||||R|||||| |
| ||||||| ||  \___/  | / \  +  \   /  __+__ +    | |||||U|||||| |
| ||||||| ||         |(red) +   \ /  (dan- )+    | |||||N|||F|| |
| ||||||| ||         | \ /  +----+    \ger/-|----|------*|||I|| |
| ||||||| ||         |  +---|----+     \ / _+_   | |||||||||G|| |
| ||||||| ||         |  +   +    +------+ /   \  | |||||||||H|| |
| ||||||| ||         |  +  / \   +      +(cour-) | |||||||||T|| |
| ||||||| ||         |  + (wet)  +      + \age/--|----------*|| |
| ||||||| ||         |  +  \ /   +      +  \_/   | |||||||||||| |
| ||||||| ||         |  +   +    +      +   +    | |||||||||||| |

  The theory here appeals to logic.  I do not know know which of
  your above cited varieties of neurons fits the bill for a long
  fiber holding a concept.  Nevertheless, it is in the nature of
  a neuron to have a long axon with potentially up to 10K synapses.

  Whether it be Dr. LeFever or Stephen Wood or whoever would like
  to debunk/champion the Mentifex mind-model (or build a new one),
  to understand the theory means to peruse the on-Web materials at
  http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/ and especially at the CMU archive,
  while following a sort of Socratic dialogue here in explication
  of what the theory says and why anyone should take a look at it.

  For example, the main departure point for this theory of mind is
  the idea that logic dictates several things:
  1.  Sensory perception MUST feed into linear memory channels.
  2.  There is obviously intermodal communication among the channels.
  3.  Concepts MUST reside elsewhere than in the sensory channels.
  4.  THEREFORE, concepts must lie EITHER in the neurons linking
      the separate sensory memory channels, OR in neurons MEDIATING
      the linkage of sensory modalities.  The second choice prevails.

>>  Concepts above are "deep" in the Chomskyan sense that they under-
>>  lie, at the profoundest level, the linguistic generation of ideas.
>>  When a thought forms as the dynamic interaction of the "deep" con-
>>  cepts, activity bubbles upwards through the "shallow" lexical
>>  concepts, where rigid structures of Chomskyan syntax fetch words
>>  and morphemes stored in auditory memory to create a new sentence.
>>  The auditory system then consciously hears itself think that idea.
 
> Again, prove it. There's a number of suggestions that people
> don't think in language (see Pinker for a start), but in a kind
> of mentalese. This would seem to suggest that the auditory system
> does not hear itself think an idea (for a start the _auditory_ system
> responds to external sounds, not to subvocal speech - have a look
> through some functional imaging studies.).   

  People think across a whole range of modalities; we are concerned
  here with the generation of a COMMUNICABLE thought.  If you are
  attending a lecture and formulating in your mind a question to ask,
  your auditory memory channel HEARS each surface-structure version
  of the sentence that you are generating in the form of a question.
  The auditory memory channel is your only SELF-PERCEIVING channel:
  whatever we think verbally, we also experience verbally -- in a
  creative loop of initial formulation and subsequent refinement.

>>  Dr. LeFever, sometimes History taps a man on the shoulder and he
>>  must choose to take advantage of that tide in the affairs of men
>>  which leads on to fortune.  Please consider such options as wear-
>>  ing to your meetings a nametag or button:  "Ask me about Mentifex."
>>  Be either the great debunker of Mentifex or the great Dr. LeFever.

>  Or be both! Or alternatively, give up on Mentifex and get on with
>  some serious research.



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list